Fuzzy Keystone logic..

[healthmyths]

The Ben Franklin or "Balance Sheet" Decision tool.

Reasons for Keystone Pipeline
Oil will NOT go to China
Oil transported under ground
in one mile of pipeline 300 barrels
16,000 largest spill over 2 acres
The Alyeska 700,000 barrels per day pipeline's largest oil spill involving the main pipeline took place on February 15, 1978, when an unknown individual blew a 1-inch (2.54-centimeter) hole in it at Steele Creek, just east of Fairbanks.
Approximately 16,000 barrels (2,500 m3) of oil leaked out of the hole before the pipeline was shut down.
After more than 21 hours, it was restarted.

Reasons against.
Oil will go to China
Shipped by tanker over ocean one million barrels A DAY.
1 million barrels in tanker
1989 Exxon Valdez - 260,000 barrels covered 11,000 miles, Billions of dollars clean up with lasting damage to species.

Summary..
Oil will NOT be used against the USA competitively.
Oil WILL not be transported over the oceans
Largest recorded spill 250,000 barrels on 1,000 miles of coastline.

Seems to be a NO brainer!

Please anti-logic people explain where
1) The above FACTS are wrong
2) Why then if the FACTS are NOT wrong --Why are you opposed?

 

[Inthemiddle]

Do you speak English?

 

[healthmyths]

Do you speak English?

Latine loquor absterget asinum!

 

[Inthemiddle]

Neither English nor Latin, apparently....

 

[healthmyths]

Neither English nor Latin, apparently....

So you'd rather have 1 million barrels of a oil a day splattered over 11,000 miles of ocean with the rest of the daily tanker shipments going to China that would raise the price of gas at your station by 100%?

 

[healthmyths]

Obviously Anti-Keystone don't have ANY response to the logic that
A) It would be better for the USA to have access to Canadian oil then China.
B) It is less risky to ship oil by pipeline versus 1 million barrel tanker per day.

So are there any further Anti-Keystone comments?

Then what the h..l is Obama waiting for to approve the pipeline?

Why is he against Americans having jobs and for shipping oil to China?

 

[Inthemiddle]

So you'd rather have 1 million barrels of a oil a day splattered over 11,000 miles of ocean with the rest of the daily tanker shipments going to China that would raise the price of gas at your station by 100%?

Me, personally? I have no concern with such alarmist hypotheticals. I don't believe that the potential of spillage is an issue to be worried about either way when it comes to the Keystone project.

 

[healthmyths]

So you'd rather have 1 million barrels of a oil a day splattered over 11,000 miles of ocean with the rest of the daily tanker shipments going to China that would raise the price of gas at your station by 100%?

Me, personally? I have no concern with such alarmist hypotheticals. I don't believe that the potential of spillage is an issue to be worried about either way when it comes to the Keystone project.

What you "BELIEVE" is irrelevant and more importantly patently wrong!

The FACTS are that
A) There is a greater risk of 1 million barrel tanker having an accident then a pipeline.
B) There is a larger volume at risk of a 1 million barrel tanker then 300 barrel 1 mile pipe!

Nothing "hypothetical" there!
Do you have a problem recognizing 1 million barrels is more then 300 barrels?

 

[Inthemiddle]

What you "BELIEVE" is irrelevant

Oh really? So, I'm under some kind of obligation to base my position on the Keystone project based on the criteria you set out?

and more importantly patently wrong!

And how the hell is that? What makes me "wrong" if my position is based on one set of criteria or concerns, and not on the ones you want them to be? Who are you to tell me that I have to either support of oppose the Keystone project based on the hypothetical alarmist babble about oil leaks?

 

[skookerasbil]

So you'd rather have 1 million barrels of a oil a day splattered over 11,000 miles of ocean with the rest of the daily tanker shipments going to China that would raise the price of gas at your station by 100%?

Me, personally? I have no concern with such alarmist hypotheticals. I don't believe that the potential of spillage is an issue to be worried about either way when it comes to the Keystone project.

What you "BELIEVE" is irrelevant and more importantly patently wrong!

The FACTS are that
A) There is a greater risk of 1 million barrel tanker having an accident then a pipeline.
B) There is a larger volume at risk of a 1 million barrel tanker then 300 barrel 1 mile pipe!

Nothing "hypothetical" there!
Do you have a problem recognizing 1 million barrels is more then 300 barrels?

The concerns with accidents have to be secondary. The k00ks want to live in a world without risk. Fascinating.........but quite ridiculous. Life is about weighing relative risks, which of course, those on the far left never make part of the thinking process. Again........fascinating...........but ridiculous.

Indeed.......listening to the arguments from the far left k00ks, you'd think that we're in some kind of hugely pro-growth economy.


Economically........its a no-brainer. Oh.......its also going to happen so the k00ks best buckle up their ghey chinstraps.

Economic benefits will likely win Keystone XL approval: Shell | News | Financial Post


http://www.montrealgazette.com/business/Count%2Beconomic%2Bmultiplier%2Beffects%2Bwhen%2Blooking%2BKeystone%2Bpipeline/5634698/story.html